Sentencing — procedural unreasonableness

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — procedural unreasonableness

Where the district court failed to consider a non-frivolous argument that the defendant was coerced into committing the crime, the sentence must be vacated.

“Ramirez-Mendoza argues that the district court ignored his claim that he was coerced into participating in the kidnapping, and thus, whether he was entitled to a reduction to his calculated criminal offense level. See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12 (‘If the defendant committed the offense because of serious coercion, blackmail or duress, under circumstances not amounting to a complete defense, the court may depart downward.’). We agree. In his sentencing memorandum, Ramirez- Mendoza offered evidence suggesting that he was also kidnapped or, at a minimum, subjected to significant pressure to collect Hector’s debt. For example, Ramirez-Mendoza claims that Rodriguez threatened harm to Ramirez-Mendoza’s family if he did not help collect the debt. Ramirez-Mendoza also points to his statement during the recorded phone call with Roberto—‘[i]t’s not coming from me brother . . . you know what they did to me’—which could be evidence of coercion. There is also the matter of the duct tape found on a second chair in the South Sacramento house and the simple fact that Ramirez-Mendoza consistently and forcefully called on Roberto to answer for the debt, even though Ramirez-Mendoza and Roberto were social acquaintances. All this is to say that Ramirez- Mendoza’s coercion argument is more than a mere stock argument. Accordingly, the district court should have addressed it at the sentencing hearing.”

Vacated and Remanded.

11-3314 U.S. v. Ramirez-Mendoza

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Randa, J., Kanne, J.